There’s a reason why the global value of iGaming is approaching the US$100 billion-mark.
Regulation hasn’t been able to keep pace with technological change across many countries, allowing a new wave of operators to fill the gap with new content that players are snapping up.
New Zealand is a prime example of a country that’s riding on this wave, and the reasons it's caught operators' attention go well beyond its broadband speeds.
Five million people is a lot of people, but in a global industry worth almost a hundred billion dollars, it’s a drop in the ocean. New Zealand, however, is popping targeting strategies of major offshore operators for several reasons.
Gambling is already integrated in Kiwi culture, and in a mostly sensible way. There are gambling issues, of course, but the vast majority of New Zealanders have a small bet regularly. Go into most pubs and there’s a “pokie” in the corner. This culture means that digital operators can easily sell a more convenient version of something that they’re used to, rather than a completely new product.
Secondly, the infrastructure is already set up for digital expansion. Almost everyone owns a smartphone and the internet connection is excellent. Security tech is also high enough to keep card details safe when someone signs up to a new foreign iGaming platform, which must comply with local laws to operate there in the first place.
NZ may be a relatively small market, but it’s worth its weight in gold for a new operator setting up shop there.
The Gambling Act 2003 was the foundation for the fertile conditions we’re seeing today. While it stopped local operators from running online casino games, it neglected to mention offshore platforms or the players using them.
Two decades later, that omission has produced a market that is simultaneously unregulated and completely legal to participate in, which is a strange place to land.
Online casinos in New Zealand tend to operate via internationally respect licenses from the likes of Malta or Gibraltar – none of these are accountable to any authority on the two islands. The Department of Internal Affairs don’t have the power to do much about plays accessing and using these operators freely.
The longer the proposed iGaming Bill is delayed, the more Kiwis make use of the current situation, contributing to the iGaming rise across the country,
Asia-Pacific is where the global iGaming industry is placing a significant portion of its expansion energy right now, and NZ sits at an interesting angle to all of it: it’s on the edges of the region geographically, but also culturally distinct from most other countries there. It still, however, benefits from the operator investment flowing through it.
NZ is also a relatively easy entry point for international platforms. There are no domestic licensing and no aggressive enforcement – instead there’s an English-speaking player base that needs no localisation beyond currency. Compare that to Japan’s complex legal picture or Australia, which is continuously tightening its approach to foreign casino products.
New Zealand has not gone down this road, which has led to its divergence from its neighbours.
Loosely regulated markets obviously bring problems like inadequate player protections and limited recourse when operators behave badly, but they do improve competition, which often leads to a better product.
Mediocre platforms simply don’t hold NZ players’ attention for long because there are so many superior options available. Standards improve as operators compete to stand out, including better game libraries, faster withdrawals, customer service that functions across time zones.
This filters through to the software studio supplying the content too. A player in Christchurch is accessing the same product as someone in Stockholm, built by the same European studio, running on the same servers, which NZ players come to expect.
This is the main benefit of industry globalisation and one that iGaming operators are pushing across the country.
Gambling addiction experts have been providing excellent arguments for limiting the reach of these offshore operators, arguing that no local accountability mechanism with no mandatory deposit limits are endangering the population. Not only are they at greater risk of betting problems, but there’s also no dispute resolution framework for if things go wrong,
The dilemma that the country has is whether to follow Australia toward restriction or builds a domestic licensing framework that brings offshore operators onshore with conditions attached. Both paths have been proven to work elsewhere but may be harder to implement the more the industry grows.
As growth keeps coming, New Zealand’s players continue to reap the rewards of greater choice, but also risk being left without a safety until the country’s politicians act.